Superfluous Names and Later Homonyms
Author(s): C. X. Furtado
Source: Taxon, Vol. 9, No. 5 (Jun., 1960), pp. 147-150
Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1217383 .
Accessed: 15/03/2014 10:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Taxon.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:20:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SUPERFLUOUS NAMES AND LATER HOMONYMS
C. X. Furtado
One of the most singular rules in the
Nomenclatural Code (1956) is the one that
deals with the superfluous names (Art. 64-1)
first approved at the Cambridge Botanical
Congress (1930) and subsequently confirmed
at Amsterdam (1935). A consideration of this
rule in 1939 led me to deduce the following:
"Moreover no advantage is gained by
denying priorability to such unambiguous
specific names as are capable of rendering
their later homonyms impriorable; on the
contrary such a denial not only does not
maintain the principle of economy in epithets
but also creates a class of unusable names
which are both valid and unambiguous....
it is absolutely essential that the rules concerning validity, priorability and priority (or
legitimacy) should not be confused so as to
render their application difficult.... There
is no proper reason why certain offences
against the priority rules should be singled
out for penalization and others escape it."
(Gard. Bull. 11: 3. 1939). I suggested therefore the deleti6n of this rule from the Code.
Typification Simplifies the Problem
Later in 1949 the plea for the deletion of
the rule was again affirmed for reasons of
clarity and precision in the Code; for, since
the rule of priority is applied only to the
priorable names or epithets in order to find
the correct name or epithet in a given
circumstance, it would be a weakness in the
Code, or in the jurisprudenceon which it is
based, I maintained, if the priority rule was
allowed to be invoked also in determining
the priorability of names or epithets. In that
paper some examples were also discussed to
show how the application of the rule of
superfluous names overlooked many old
practices in citing synonyms, or led to the
rejection of good, long current names in
order to create new ones. (Op. cit. 12:
327-329. 1949).
Ficus erecta Gedner (1786) was given there
as an instance of an apparently superfluous
name because F. pumila L. was quoted in
its synonymy; but the author's description
and the fact that in another page of the
same publication he retained F. pumila L.
as a good species, show that some such
phrase as "pro parte", "sensu auctorum" or
(Singapore)
"quoad specimina in herbariis determinata"
is understood after the synonym F. pumila
L. Attention was also drawn there to the
cases like that of Cerastostylis eriarioides
Hk.f. (1891) which, though published in
contravention to the priority right of Eria
pygmaea Hk.f. (1890), has to be retained
because pygmaea Hk. f. cannot now be
legitimately adopted under Cerastostylis because of C. pygmaea Gagn. (1932). Cases of
this class where the new name created and
the older synonym cited are typonymous or
exactly synonymous are not as many as the
ones where the two names are not synonymous; but nevertheless they are many. In some
cases the author of the new name gives
reasons why he does not employ the oldest
priorable epithet. Thus Embelia javanica A.
DC. (1844), was created for Ardisia scandens
Bl. (1826) with the following note: "Nomen
mutavi quia omnes scandentes." But since
E. scandens (Bl.) cannot now be instated as
the correct name because of E. scandens
(Lour.) Mez (1902), E. javanica A. DC. should
continue as the correct name of the species.
In all such cases, the rule of priority works
satisfactorily if the rule of superfluous names
is eliminated from the Code.
It must not be overlooked also that there
was formerly the custom of citing a dubious
or unidentifiable name in the synonymy to
indicate the author's suspicions as to the
identity of the older synonym, even when
both the description and existing types were
insufficient to allow one to make an accurate
determination. It was this practice that later
led some authors to make many new combinations based on Loureiro's, Blanco's and
other species and reject many well-typified
names of subsequent authors, an activity
resented by many botanists. Thus, Gnetum
indicum (Lour.) Merr. (1917) was based on
Abutua indica Lour. (1790) as the correct
name for G. latifolium Bl. (1834) and G.
juniculare Brong. (1834). However Markgraf
(Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitz. 10: 466 & 490. 1930)
has shown that both the specimens of
Loureiro and the Rumphian plate of Gnemon
funiculare Rumph. (1747) cited by Loureiro
under his species are not accurately identifiable taxa, and that there are reasons to
believe that both these are two distinct
species. On geographical grounds Markgraf
suggests that Abutua indica Lour. might be
147
This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:20:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
identical with his newly described species,
G. montanum Mgf. (1930). Had he indicated
his suspicions merely by citing the name in
the synonymy as was the practice formerly
with many botanists, G. montanum would
have been considered a superfluous name,
even though the identity of Abutua indica
Lour. is not clear.
Ross (Taxon 7(9): 265. 1958) has put forward a plea to render inoperative the rule
of superfluous names in the case of new
combinations like Chloris radiata (L.) Sw.
(1788) instated with a description, accompanied by a citation of its basinym Agrostis
radiata L. (1759) and an older priorable
synonym Andropogon fasciculatum L. (1753).
The status should be judged, Ross states, by
their typification. If the two synonyms are
conspecific, then the epithet fasciculatum L.
(1753) would take precedence. If not, then
Ch. radiatus (L.) Sw. should not be rejected
as a superfluous name but retained' for its
type (basinym) A. radiata L. and let the rule
of priority take effect as if the rule of superfluous names did not exist in the Code. But
there is no valid reason why a new combination, a new name based on an older
synonym, and a new species based on the
description and citation of synonyms should
be given different treatments as to their
legitimacy or priorability. On the contrary
the present pleas for a different treatment
show that the rule of superfluous names is
rather an anomaly in the Code. In fact the
recent tendency to reject well-known names
seems to strengthen the cause of those who
plead for the conservation of specific names.
Van Steenis, also favours the continuation
of the old procedure by ignoring the rule of
superfluous names. Thus in Flora Malesiana
(5: 554. 1958) van Steenis persists in retaining
Moringa oleifera Lamk. (1785) even though
the author of the binomial had quoted under
it an older" priorable synonym Balanus
myrepsica Cars. (1764) = M. myrepsica
(Gars.) Thell., because the description of
Lamarck was "entirely based" on specimens
the author had seen and "does not contain
any characters of Moringa myrepsica (Gars.)
Thell."
The Rule of "Later Homonym"
In a recent paper Fosberg (Taxon 8: 65.
1959) seems to consider as illogical the objections for name changes under the strict
application of the rule of superfluous names,
and so he instates Serianthes dilmyi Fosb.
for Serianthes grandiflora Benth. But Fosberg
overlooks the fact that under the rules it is
possible to defend that, though S. grandiflora Benth. (1844) including Acacia myriadenia Bert. is illegitimate being a superfluous
name, S. grandiflora Benth. (1846) minus S.
myridenia (Bert.) Benth. (1846) is the legitimate correct name for the taxon and not a
later homonym of S. grandiflora Benth.
(1844), and that therefore S. dilmyi Fosb. is
superfluous! This may seem a novel procedure, but pleas to redefine the term "later
homonym" more precisely and to prevent
such procedures were overruled by the 1959
Congress (cf. Furtado in Gard. Bull. 11:
26-27. 1939 & 12: 337-338. 1949). Under the
existing definition of the homonymy Sprague
and Green (Kew Bull.: 78-80. 1938) deduced
that, while Pseudotsuga taxifolia (Lamb.)
Britton (1889) was illegitimate, Ps. taxifolia
(Lamb. ex Poir.) Rehder (1938) was the
correct name for the Douglas Fir, because
the holotypes of both these names were
identical. (Art. 64-2 defines a later homonym
as a name that duplicates a previous valid
name of a taxon of the same rank but "based
on a different type.") Similarly Hubbard
(Kew Bull.: 319. 1936) invoked the rule in
Art. 64-1 to reject Loudetia Hochst. ex Braun
(1841) as superfluous name for the older
Tristachya, but admitted Loudetia Hochst.
ex Steud. (1854) as the correct name for the
genus and "not a later homonym, since it is
based on the same type as the illegitimately
applied name Loudetia A. Br." (cf. for discussion on these and other cases see Furtado
in Fedde, Repert. 44: 256-264. 1938).
Circumscriptionand Typification
Confusion of typification with circumscription to which Fosberg refers in his
discussion seems to me much deeper than
is generally suspected and calls for some
clarification in the Code itself. Perhaps the
following consideration might help to convey
my meaning.
Strictly speaking a name cannot be separated from the type. Even a description based
on new specimens loses its identity and
becomes intimately fused with the older one
if the new description is given under an
older validly published name. As a result of
this fusion, the type of the older description
is also the type of the new circumscription;
there is no means of expressing nomenclaturally a distinction between these two
descriptions, since the new description did
148
This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:20:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
not create a new taxon. There is, however,
a possibility of expressing nomenclaturally
the misidentified specimens, but nomenclatural expressions indicating a misinterpretation or misidentification has no status
as a description of a taxon. Thus if under
Ardisia scandens Bl. two specimens were
used as syntypes, one from Java and the
other from Sumatra, one could not split the
components into two taxa thus: Embelia
javanica A. DC. (basinym = A. scandens Bl.
quoad specimen typicum javanicum) and E.
sumatrana Doe (basinym = A. scandens Bl.
quoad specimen non-lectotypicum, sumatrense).
This principle should hold good also in
cases where the description, though based
originally on only one type specimen, was
subsequently altered to include one or more
elements that have now to be separated
taxonomically and nomenclaturally from the
original taxon. One may separate the specimens that have been misidentified with the
original taxon, but new descriptions will be
needed to as many specimens dissociated
from the old taxon to be made individually
the holotypes of the new taxa or names.
However this ruling, if applied restrospectively, will render several names invalid
at least on the dates on which they are
accepted as validly published. Hence an
explicit rule is needed to safeguard the past
procedures as well as to proscribe validation
in future of new taxa by referring to misapplications (cf. also Furtado in Gard. Bull.
9: 258-260. 1937).
author's name is often omitted after the
taxon's name or the latter is erroneously
attributed to the person who.had first given
it in the pre-starting literature or in herbarium; and sometimes the reference quoted
under a taxon is the latest monograph or
book where its best description is available.
In Persoon's citation there is no means to
judge that he had used the expression to
mean Datura arborea L. sensu Ruiz et Pay.,
non sensu typica. The fact that Persoon
failed to account elsewhere D. arborea L.
sensu typicum also favours my contention.
Further had Persoon adopted the binomial
Brugmansia arborea in place of B. peruviana
without making any change in the diagnosis
and citations given under the latter, it is
certain that botanists would have regarded
the binomial a new combination based on
Datura arborea L. and not a new species
with D. arborea L. sensu R. & P., non sensu
Linneano, as its synonym.
Even in this case, if Art. 64-1 is ignored,
the typification helps to clarify the circumscription of the taxon and simplifies the
application of the rule of priority. If a
nomenclatural entity may be typified on one
of the elements to the exclusion of the other
syntype and if Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. is to
be typified on its basinym to the exclusion
of even older synonyms and be freed from
being incriminated under the rule of superfluous names, why not Serianthes grandiflora
Benth. and Moringa oleifera Lamk. be
similarly typified and allowed each to eliminate from its circumscription the synonym
It is under this principle that Fosberg that prevents it from being 'used as the
correct name of the typified taxon? There
(Taxon 8: 53. 1959) regards Brugmansia
candida Pers. (1805) as having been validated appears to be no valid reasons why unequal
procedures should be followed, and the
by a reference to a misinterpretation of
Datura arborea L. sensu Ruiz et Pavon question of priority should be allowed to be
involved when the problem is decided
(1799) and deduces that Persoon's binomial
under the rules of typification and
normally
should
not
be
as
"probably
regarded
super- circumscription.
fluous since Persoon definitely ascribed his
synonym to R. & P. without mention of Linnaeus". This conclusion of Fosberg shows
Conclusions
that the rule of superfluous names is not as
clear as he claimed it to be in the paper
From the foregoing it is obvious that the
quoted above. To me the case of B. candida rule of superfluous names is not sound in
Pers. differs in no material way from Serian- the first instance on the basis of the juristhes grandiflora Benth. (1844) and Moringa prudence because the rule of priority meant
oleifera Lamk. (1785). Persoon gave not only to be applied only to the names and epithets
new generic and specific descriptions but also that are priorable is invoked, in this case,
quoted the Linnean binomial Datura arborea in determining the priorability of the names
in the synonymy and also quoted the plate and epithets. Secondly the rule calls for
and the description of Ruiz and Pavon given exceptions as is shown in the pleas put forunder D. arborea L. In older books the ward by Ross. Further it ignores the fact
149
This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:20:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
that older botanists quoted synonyms also to
indicate misdeterminations and misapplications in literature and herbaria as well as to
express their suspicions as to the identity of
an older unidentifiable taxon, that is, cases
in which more precise expressions are adopted
at present. Further most interpreters of the
rule of superfluous names (except perhaps
the original sponsors of the rule) have
ignored the rule of the later homonyms
which would make names like Serianthes
dilmyi Fosb. (1959) superfluous for S. grandiflora Benth. (1846) non Benth. (1844). In
view of this it appears that the rule of
superfluous names (Art. 64-1) should be
deleted, that of the later homonyms amended,
and that the status of the superfluous names
be decided under the rules of typification
and other rules normally applied in such
circumstances.
THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERIC NAME
POLYSTACHYA HOOK.
(Orchidaceae)
V. S. Summerhayes
and A. A. Bullock
The determination of the correct name of
the type species of the generic name Polystachya Hook. (1824) involves certain taxonomic as wcll as nomenclatural considerations,
in spite of the fact that Hooker described the
genus as monotypic. It also underlines the
fact that the type of a generic name is a
species and that the name given to it by the
author of the generic name may be inadmissible under the International Code.*
The type of Polystachya Hook. is the
species represented in Hook. Exot. Fl. 2:
t. 103 (1824), and as pointed out by Rickett
and Staflcu (Taxon 8: 258. 1959) the name
P.
applied to it is illegitimate because
Hooker
luteol. cited Epidendrum minutum Aublet
(1775) and Cranichis luteola Sw. (1806) as
synonyms. The same authors also pointed out
that Polystachya may be removed from the
list of nomina generica conservanda because
the opposing name Dendrorkis Thouars (1809)
[Dendrorchis Thouars (1822)] was not validly
published. They also stated that the illegitimate P. luteola (Sw.) Hook. may be replaced
by the later P. luteola Wight (1852) under the
provisions of Art. 72, note, of the Code. This
was because at the later date a combination
under Polystachya from Epidendrum minutum could not be made on account of the
existence of P. minuta A. Rich. et Galeotti
(1845), which applies to a different species.**
* Here and elsewhere in this note the 1956
(Paris) edition of the Code is referred to.
** A similar
interpretation of Art. 72, note,
is suggested by Rickett and Stafleu (1.c. 259),
in Note 1 under Eulophia R. Br. (nom. cons.).
(Kew)
It is the purpose of this note to show that
the above interpretation of the Code is
faulty, and to determine the correct name
of the type species of Polystachya. Art. 72
gives instruction as to the procedure to be
followed when a name is found to be illegitimate under the preceding Articles (63-71),
and the note quoted by Rickett and Stafleu
reads as follows: "When a new epithet is
required, an author may, if he wishes, adopt
an epithet previously given to the taxon in
an illegitimate name, if there is no obstacle
to its employment in the new position or
sense; the epithet in the resultant combination is treated as new". The italics have been
inserted to emphasize what we consider to
be the significant words in the note; it is
inescapable, in our opinion, that the epithet
must be transferred in order to provide a
"new position" and a "resultant combination",
or that the new name must apply to a
different species in order to give a "new
sense
These two points may now be considered
in turn. In regard to "new position", in this
particular instance P. luteola Wight gives no
new position for the epithet; it is in fact
merely a misquotation of P. luteola (Sw.)
Hook. and the "resultant combination"
remains illegitimate. The question of "new
sense" is more complicated. The view that
the name is used in a new sense depends
primarily on the assumption that Wight's
plant is the same as the plant described by
Hooker, but not the same as either the
Guianan plant of Aublet (1775) or the
Jamaican plant of Swartz (1800, 1806).
150
This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:20:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions